Christianity and Socialism

The following thread is quite pertinent to the topic at hand:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2456/communism-socialism-distributivism-capitalism-christianity

I read somewhere that the popularization of Christianity was helped by the public disaffection for the elitist ethics in the Greco-Roman polytheistic religions. The latter celebrated exceptional merit, exceptional heroism, exceptional strength, exceptional ancestry, which would not be perceived as relatable to the weakened and fearful enslaved and plebeian masses. Furthermore, the mythos of the ancient world was hard, punitive, and unforgiving. Christianity may have been partly embraced as a source of self-confidence for the people, affording space for their personal weaknesses and unequal social standing.

I also find it hard to accept the conservative argument, that revolutionary change should be avoided when possible, because of its destabilizing consequences, when the very religion around which they center their own narrative was among the most revolutionary cultural changes of its time and its region. This changed during the Middle ages when the aristocracy made religion their own prerogative again. (Probably this is also the period when Christianity became politically conservative.)

I am neither particularly left-leaning politically (in spirit maybe, but not as a political system), neither conventionally religious, but I am interested by this argument.

Quoting simeonz

This changed during the Middle ages when the aristocracy made religion their own prerogative again. (Probably this is also the period when Christianity became politically conservative.)

I see you're going further back than I had anticipated. Please elaborate on this fact of the aristocracy adopting Christianity and thus making it politically conservative?

Quoting Wallows

I see you're going further back than I had anticipated. Please elaborate on this fact of the aristocracy adopting Christianity and thus making it politically conservative?

One could begin with the acceptance of the divine entitlement to privilege, indirectly stemming from the king's own divine right. This notion was used as justification for suppressions of civil insurrections. In the same article you can find the following account:

Wikipedia:One passage in scripture supporting the idea of divine right of kings was used by Martin Luther, when urging the secular authorities to crush the Peasant Rebellion of 1525 in Germany in his Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, basing his argument on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 13:1–7

There was a merger between the political/legal and religious systems, where the latter suppressed reform from within (in spirit) and the former suppressed it from without (by force.)

Reply to simeonz

Oh yeah, Robin Hood as Martin Luther, for sure.

But, I believe this is all history to a large degree.

Maybe to guide the conversation, I would propose the edifying question as to why Marx was bashing on Christianity or any organized religion to such a degree to declare it the opiate of the masses? The divorce between socialism and Christianity seems to have been declared at this point in history.

Quoting Wallows

Maybe to guide the conversation, I would propose the edifying question as to why Marx was bashing on Christianity or any organized religion to such a degree to declare it the opiate of the masses? The divorce between socialism and Christianity seems to have been declared at this point in history.

As is usual, I am reaching the limits of my narrow philosophical competence. But I propose that the conversation does not equate Marx to modern socialism. In fact, it should be modern communism, because western socialism appears to me to have divorced itself from the more radical Marxist ideas. I don't think that all modern conservatives are [s]atheists[/s] theists as well. I am unsure where the divide currently stands - taxation politics, state interference in the market, individualistic vs collectivist ethics.

Regarding Marx - from what I know - his attitude was humanist, which I understand to mean that the accountability of a person is first and foremost to his society. That the people create the ethical standards that guide the individual, not religion. And he probably did not believe in the ontology of the religious teachings as well - miracles, deity, etc. Where humanism and western Christianity differ in their outcome will depend on interpretations. I can certainly see compatibility between them, if the person has the right attitude.

Reply to simeonz

Yes, views vary on the relationship between socialism and Christianity to such a large degree that one may as well feel lost in regards to it. I'm afraid Wikipedia won't be of much use even on the matter.

But, there is this interesting entry on Christian socialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

Here's what I surmise. In countries where interpretations of the Bible are guided by an authority (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy), we have seen the emergence of socialist tendencies and doctrines thereof. Think, Latin America or even Eastern Europe, with the USSR being a quizzical example.

In democracies where secularism was enshrined, the correlation between socialism and Christianity has become moot.

That's about as far as I can take the analogy...

[Quote]All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness[/quote] - 2 Timothy 3:16

I feel this line to be extremely relevant to this discussion. Hard interpretation of this on the subject of Stagnation I feel strengthens @Wallows points here.

And, for the matter, the current Pope, Francis, is a hardline socialist, if anyone follows this line of thought from within Catholicism.

Reply to Wallows

I believe if Christians embraced practical ways of making their neighbor's lives easier it would be very hard to tell whether a given society was fiscally conservative or on the other end socialist. Many people can argue about theology but as soon as a christian tries to argue their way out of following "turn the other cheek" many christians will throw the old testament at that person. Then the christian will say something like "we aren't under the old testament law". I don't doubt these christian's salvation but i believe based on the bible that there are very severe consequences for the christian who ignores both the old testament and the new testament. I'm not going to quote Bible verses because of forum rules.

Much of the old testament reiterates that the given set of people was corrupt "because they didn't strengthen the hand of the poor". There are in fact ways of strengthening the hand of the poor without imposing on the tax payer.

The puritans were calvinist and initially they embraced communism or what at their time was equivalent to first century christianity (prior to Marx). That initial economic system in massachusetts failed due to various reasons. Calvinism isn't always synonous with capitalism.

Quoting christian2017

I believe if Christians embraced practical ways of making their neighbor's lives easier it would be very hard to tell whether a given society was fiscally conservative or on the other end socialist.

Well, yes. The US spends more than any other country on charities or philanthropism. It is exceedingly paradoxical that this has become an individual calling for many religious types instead of something that would be implemented on a federal level. But, that's just America for you.

Reply to Wallows

we have welfare. Considering corn production or agriculture is subsidized by the federal government and to some extent land is a scarcity (just as money is labeled scarce), it would be in accordance with a fair capital society to give people a processed or unprocessed corn stipend. We can't have it both ways.

I understand due to the lack of vitamins in corn it leads to pellagra. Corn can be fed to chickens and even some types of edible insects. This solution is also contigent on zoning laws that adhere to free market principles (drastically reduced zoning laws).

Quoting christian2017

we have welfare.

Yeah, so why does the religiously oriented right hate on it so much, and this isn't something exclusive to the right in the US, also. Centrists like Clinton or Obama, have been staunchly opposed to anything resembling welfare, even if it is economically rational to embrace it!

"We should go back in time to answer the question of why corn became subsidized by the government. Like any other crop, corn has good years and bad years. The early 1800s brought a boom for U.S. corn farmers as they moved West for farmland. But this over-planting of land set the stage for the financial problem that came in the 1930s. The excess drove the price of corn so low that it was basically worthless, and the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl only made the situation worse. This is when the federal government decided to implement a subsidy on corn to stabilize the fluctuating prices."

The above is a fallacy. When the government subsidizes corn it raises the price of corn but at the same time allows the farmer not to have to grow as much and also gives the farmer an incentive not to cause the price to plummet. The above article was well orchestrated to fool the reader.

Reply to Wallows

I agree. I think if people understood that money is a legal fiction (Noah Harrari) they would be less angry over the issue of welfare.

Reply to christian2017

Here's what I think about what happened. Corn prices plummeted, and the gov stepped in to set a price floor for the farmers. I don't think it got to the point of quotas, or I might be wrong on this.

And, yeah, we do have massive subsidies to farmers. But... at least the food is pretty cheap. I believe America is in the highest-ranking after the Netherlands and others in terms of food production per square hectare.

Reply to Wallows Christianity started off as the religion of the dispossessed. After a period of class warfare the ruling class (polytheistic) adopted the religion of the lower classes and turned it into the state religion (Constantine). This was the formation of Catholicism. A new counter revolution happened under the banner of Protestantism and this was also eventually adopted by the ruling classes (Northern Europe). The ruling class is and always will be right-wing and any religion they adopt will always be as such interpreted.

Quoting christian2017

I think if people understood that money is a legal fiction (Noah Harrari) they would be less angry over the issue of welfare.

Money are symbolic for insured debt. I wouldn't call "debt" a fiction anymore then I would call "promise" a fiction. The problem with money is that by design, it is intended to be accumulable. This ensures that individuals who produce in excess of their needs, by virtue of their savings, can recall their debts from society, and thus enterprise a locus of collective human effort. Unfortunately, this also gives them power over the collective that they thus manage, which enables them to extract disproportionate debt from society in some cases. Eventually, this can result in monopoly, plutocracy, etc.

Nonetheless, with all its deficiencies, I would call money an abstract agreement.

Quoting Wallows

Here's what I surmise. In countries where interpretations of the Bible are guided by an authority (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy), we have seen the emergence of socialist tendencies and doctrines thereof. Think, Latin America or even Eastern Europe, with the USSR being a quizzical example.

Actually, being from East Europe, I can assure you that the connection is mostly tangential. The more to the east a culture is, the more preference for authority you find in it. The more to the west and north you go, the more egalitarian and democratic cultures you find. In East Europe and Asia, people mostly distrust the individual, and they prefer external government. The USSR communism was not partial towards religion, but it afforded it some existence. Most people disassociated with their religious beliefs at the time, or would not discuss them openly in society. Interestingly though, a lot of ex-party members today are fervently religious. I think that they want to have external authority that dictates normative behavior, and as communism exited the political scene, they found religion a suitable replacement.

Altogether, I do not think that half of the people describing themselves as theists in East Europe are actually philosophically religious. This is more likely just a customary state for them.

Reply to Wallows

Many conservatives would justify getting rid of food stamps. If that became the reality then we would also have to address the corn subsidies.

Reply to simeonz

I agree with that mostly except that money can be manipulated much easier then land, resources and services. However it is even possible to manipulate the relationships between people regarding land, resources and services. It just so happens money is much easier to manipulate. When a lawyer argues a case, much of how she influences the flow of the court case is not necessarily based on good intentions but in fact it is some times based on the way the law is written and how to properly conduct oneself in a court. Whence the term "legal fiction" (paraphrased from Noah Harrari's "Sapiens").

land is scarce just as money is scarce (high school term "scarcity"). To embrace fiscal conservatism, the issue of subsidizing corn production must be assessed if we are going to get rid of food stamps.

A processed or unprocessed corn stipend can be given to chickens to produce a food product with vitamins and minerals. Animals very often produce vitamins and minerals from foods typically associated with Pellagra. A completely free market is a two way street.

Quoting simeonz

I read somewhere that the popularization of Christianity was helped by the public disaffection for the elitist ethics in the Greco-Roman polytheistic religions. The latter celebrated exceptional merit, exceptional heroism, exceptional strength, exceptional ancestry, which would not be perceived as relatable to the weakened and fearful enslaved and plebeian masses. Furthermore, the mythos of the ancient world was hard, punitive, and unforgiving. Christianity may have been partly embraced as a source of self-confidence for the people, affording space for their personal weaknesses and unequal social standing.

I also find it hard to accept the conservative argument, that revolutionary change should be avoided when possible, because of its destabilizing consequences, when the very religion around which they center their own narrative was among the most revolutionary cultural changes of its time and its region. This changed during the Middle ages when the aristocracy made religion their own prerogative again. (Probably this is also the period when Christianity became politically conservative.)

I am neither particularly left-leaning politically (in spirit maybe, but not as a political system), neither conventionally religious, but I am interested by this argument.

I agree, but during the middle ages they did have monasteries which many poor families sent their children too. Many of the problems we have today are a distant extension of the industrial revolution. Automation, Globalism and money manipulation have made it hard for many poor people to be self sufficient. The suicide and opiod abuse rate in the US is extremely high.

I would argue many modern Americans have become very fierce in their outlook on life due to the fact that in some sense American devalue human life more than any other people in the past 2000 years. I believe the Medieval man very often acted as a coward because they enjoyed life more than we do.

After years of depression, i decided the next time it came to it, i would fight the shark.

#SharkFighterNation

Reply to christian2017 Quoting christian2017

Much of the old testament reiterates that the given set of people was corrupt "because they didn't strengthen the hand of the poor". There are in fact ways of strengthening the hand of the poor without imposing on the tax payer.

A good point to raise; However new Testament describes the sacrifice of christ for our souls and the power of sacrifice, redemption and renewal after one has metaphorically laid benediction upon themselves for their sins by martyring themselves upon a cross or heavy burden and finding salvation through rebirth and a love of contributing to the creation of god in ourselves and most importantly others.

Just my two cents really, but I will definitely respond to more of your detailed and thoughtful contributions as I read through them time allowing.

Quoting ovdtogt

Christianity started off as the religion of the dispossessed. After a period of class warfare the ruling class (polytheistic) adopted the religion of the lower classes and turned it into the state religion (Constantine). This was the formation of Catholicism.

Yeah, a definitely interesting corollary question would be, how much of Stoic thought was incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire?

Quoting christian2017

I agree with that mostly except that money can be manipulated much easier then land, resources and services. However it is even possible to manipulate the relationships between people regarding land, resources and services.

The problem with using commodities and natural resources directly for barter is that they have limited application. Money have unlimited application, abstractly, hence transacting with them is much more powerful.

Quoting christian2017

I agree, but during the middle ages they did have monasteries which many poor families sent their children too.

Even if the politics in this regard were standard, I suspect that a lot of the wealth of the church was accumulated through state funding, land ownership, or donations from the wealthy aristocracy. But this wealth came at the expense of the poor, whose rights were trumped in favor of their lords. Therefore, the pity offered in this way was not an entirely positive effect.

Quoting christian2017

Many of the problems we have today are a distant extension of the industrial revolution. Automation, Globalism and money manipulation have made it hard for many poor people to be self sufficient.

The industrial revolution was even worse than the middle ages. And that says something. It is one of the grimmest periods in human history. When someone talks about the success of western capitalism, I always think about the initial price that was paid - slavery in south US and children working to death in Great Britain. Nonetheless, times have changed for the better.

Regarding money manipulation, as I already said - this is abuse of an instrument. This is not an excuse for the misfortune it causes, but the balance will be judged differently depending on the person's situation. If you take a non-electural government scheme for central welfare distribution, the same issue arises, because you have to rely on correctly functioning meritocratic system of appointments to office, and if it fails, you have a different kind of monster.

Regarding globalism, I am not sure what you mean. Different people have different issues with it. Do you mean the introduction of cheap labor into countries with high economic standards, cultural infusions, price pressure from imports, etc. To be honest, I do think that some of those effects are indeed abusive in a very specific technical sense (which I don't want to elaborate right now). At the same time, in any competitive situation, the person who is willing to sacrifice the most defines the expected performance - there is no level playing field. This turns any competition into terror experience for the participants. But unfortunately, I believe that natural competition is required for unbiased evaluation of performance - anything else is a test of some kind of norm or preference, which is not an objective test.

Quoting christian2017

The suicide and opiod abuse rate in the US is extremely high.

I cannot comment on that. Maybe the capitalism in the US is managed poorly compared to other countries indeed. Yet, I don't think that I have ever seen a statement that capitalistic countries have higher suicide and substance abuse factors in general.

Quoting christian2017

I would argue many modern Americans have become very fierce in their outlook on life due to the fact that in some sense American devalue human life more than any other people in the past 2000 years. I believe the Medieval man very often acted as a coward because they enjoyed life more than we do.

Maybe, or maybe they didn't know any better. Notice the rebellion I outlined in my second reply. It hasn't ended well for the poor folk.

Reply to simeonz

I lived in Eastern Europe, for a good decade, and definitely there is resentment, that goes both ways, towards Catholicism and communism. Personally, I see more overlap; but, asserting sovereignty comes first, in the minds of the former satellites of the Soviet Union.

Quoting Mark Dennis

A good point to raise; However new Testament describes the sacrifice of christ for our souls and the power of sacrifice, redemption and renewal after one has metaphorically laid benediction upon themselves for their sins by martyring themselves upon a cross or heavy burden and finding salvation through rebirth and a love of contributing to the creation of god in ourselves and most importantly others.

Just my two cents really, but I will definitely respond to more of your detailed and thoughtful contributions as I read through them time allowing.

I agree that "Once Saved Always Saved". Since my assumption is that you are a christian i can't be accused of Evangelizing. 1st Corinthians chapter 3 says that all christians build on the foundation of Jesus Christ but our works will be tested with fire. Even though a christian is guaranteed salvation upon conversion there are in fact limited punishments or disciplinary action for the christian that does not adhere to the Bible. Sin is very serious but the Christian is guaranteed salvation.

Once again i am not evangelizing considering the fact that you are a Christian.

Quoting christian2017

Many conservatives would justify getting rid of food stamps.

Across the board, food stamps are deceptively a form of subsidizing goods such as food. There's a lot of socialism in America if you're poor enough to qualify for it.

Marginalized minorities, don't really get that much love though.

Quoting simeonz

I agree with that mostly except that money can be manipulated much easier then land, resources and services. However it is even possible to manipulate the relationships between people regarding land, resources and services.
— christian2017
The problem with using commodities and natural resources directly for barter is that they have limited application. Money have unlimited application, abstractly, hence transacting with them is much more powerful.

I agree, but during the middle ages they did have monasteries which many poor families sent their children too.
— christian2017
Even if the politics in this regard were standard, I suspect that a lot of the wealth of the church was accumulated through state funding, land ownership, or donations from the wealthy aristocracy. But this wealth came at the expense of the poor, whose rights were trumped in favor of their lords. Therefore, the pity offered in this way was not an entirely positive effect.

Many of the problems we have today are a distant extension of the industrial revolution. Automation, Globalism and money manipulation have made it hard for many poor people to be self sufficient.
— christian2017
The industrial revolution was even worse then the middle ages. And that says something. It is one of the grimmest periods in human history. When someone talks about the success of western capitalism, I always think about the initial price that was paid - slavery in south US and children working to death in Great Britain. Nonetheless, times have changed for the better.

Regarding money manipulation, as I already said - this is abuse of an instrument. This is not an excuse for the misfortune it causes, but the balance will be judged differently depending on the person's situation. If you take a non-electural government scheme for central welfare distribution, the same issue arises, because you have to rely on correctly functioning meritocratic system of appointments to office, and if it fails, you have a different kind of monster.

Regarding globalism, I am not sure what you mean. Different people have different issues with it. Do you mean the introduction of cheap labor into countries with high economic standards, cultural infusions, price pressure from imports, etc. To be honest, I do think that some of those effects are indeed abusive in a very specific technical sense (which I don't want to elaborate right now). At the same time, in any competitive situation, the person who is willing to sacrifice the most defines the expected performance - there is no level playing field. This turns any competition into terror experience for the participants. But unfortunately, I believe that natural competition is required for unbiased evaluation of performance - anything else is a test of some kind of norm or preference, which is not an objective test.

The suicide and opiod abuse rate in the US is extremely high.
— christian2017
I cannot comment on that. Maybe the capitalism in the US is managed poorly compared to other countries indeed. Yet, I don't think that I have ever seen a statement that capitalistic countries have higher suicide and substance abuse factors in general.

I would argue many modern Americans have become very fierce in their outlook on life due to the fact that in some sense American devalue human life more than any other people in the past 2000 years. I believe the Medieval man very often acted as a coward because they enjoyed life more than we do.
— christian2017
Maybe, or maybe they didn't know any better. Notice the rebellion I outlined in my second reply. It hasn't ended well for the poor folk.

I don't have a problem with most of what you said. I would like to point out that automation has caused many jobs to disappear. Believe it or not automation has even taken away software development jobs. Developing software 50 years ago believe it or not was more contingent on an understanding of discrete mathematics where as in this modern age it is surprisingly much more competitive and relies more on memorizing APIs.

As far a globalism goes, i would rather be tempted to buy a $200 dollar toaster made in my own country then a $8 dollar toaster made in china, given the fact that I would more likely be paid a living wage if i worked in a factory.

I believe people in America would be more happy with a better job and at the same time having less material possessions due to the cost of labor.

Quoting Wallows

Across the board, food stamps are deceptively a form of subsidizing goods such as food. There's a lot of socialism in America if you're poor enough to qualify for it.

Marginalized minorities, don't really get that much love though.

Certain minorities are more likely to be turned down for jobs in America. I agree with that.

I'm sure that happens in some other countries. I couldn't name them all because i've only ever traveled to Canada.

I see that we're talking about money, so I might as well comment that the only instance where I picked out the fundamentally humanistic trait of Jesus, was his encounter with lenders/shylocks/money-lenders in the Bible. I don't think there's another instance in the New Testament where Jesus is infuriated more-so than towards money-lenders.

Quoting christian2017

I don't have a problem with most of what you said. I would like to point out that automation has caused many jobs to disappear. Believe it or not automation has even taken away software development jobs. Developing software 50 years ago believe it or not was more contingent on an understanding of discrete mathematics where as in this modern age it is surprisingly much more competitive and relies more on memorizing APIs.

This problem is actually going to get much worse, and I believe may cause the dissolution of societies as we know them today. It is frequently ignored, but it is the elephant in the room, and will have to be addressed sooner or later.

Quoting christian2017

As far a globalism goes, i would rather be tempted to buy a $200 dollar toaster made in my own country then a $8 dollar toaster made in china, given the fact that I would more likely be paid a living wage if i worked in a factory.

I believe people in America would be more happy with a better job and at the same time having less material possessions due to the cost of labor.

I understand your sentiment, and as I said, the use of cheap labor or the export of industries is abusive, because it transfers the economical welfare accumulated through the people of one country to a different location, with the difference becoming personal wealth of the entrepreneur. Even though, personally speaking, my country can use the investments, I cannot deny that I see a "glitch" in that.

Quoting Wallows

I see that we're talking about money, so I might as well comment that the only instance where I picked out the fundamentally humanistic trait of Jesus, was his encounter with lenders/shylocks/money-lenders in the Bible. I don't think there's another instance in the New Testament where Jesus is infuriated more-so than towards money-lenders.

I think that most people will agree that banking and stock trading (especially day-trading), even though being legitimate ways of making money, leave a lot to be desired in terms of ethical underpinnings.

Quoting simeonz

I think that most people will agree that banking and stock trading (especially day-trading), even though being legitimate ways of making money, leave a lot to be desired in terms of ethical underpinnings.

Yes, it does make one wonder just how the Vatican or Opus Dei maintain and expand their wealth through the stock market.

Quoting Wallows

Yes, it does make one wonder just how the Vatican or Opus Dei maintain and expand their wealth through the stock market.

Sorry, but honestly, I am not informed on the subject.

Quoting simeonz

Sorry, but honestly, I am not informed on the subject.

Yeah, it's definitely a message in the New Testament that often gets left out. Humdrum.

Quoting Wallows

Yeah, it's definitely a message in the New Testament that often gets left out.

My bad. I thought you were serious there.

Quoting simeonz

My bad. I thought you were serious there.

Semi-serious. I mean, if you account for all the years the Catholic Church has been around, and combine their liquid and non-liquid assets, along with probably being the first to invest in the stock markets, you should end up with a hefty sum of money accumulated throughout the years, no?

Reply to Wallows

Considering many modern banks (as opposed to Banks that were around 4000 years ago) originated during Medieval times, i truly do wander if the Catholic church actively makes financial investments. I really have never thought about the relationship between the Catholic church and whether or not they make financial investments.

Holy Shit. You found me a new hobby for the next week.

Quoting christian2017

Holy Shit. You found me a new hobby for the next week.

Grazie. :cool:

Reply to christian2017 Your assumption is half correct. I am baptised as a salvationist by family however I have my own path and beliefs. I suppose you coukd say I'm a neo Gnostic taoist who holds to the belief that Jesus was a prophet or wise man or that stories of wise men speaking truth against power in dark times ought to be revered for all the values in their particular narratives.

I try not to use the term gnostic anymore as ive read conflicting things about Gnosticism and its hard for me to keep an objective grasp of other uses but to me I just define it as a valuer of metaphor, allegory, analogy and finding wisdom in narratives on a basis if fiction first and then delve into historical truth. Historical Jesus/Isais also a very diversely described and conflicted subject I find too.

So formally I spiritually identify as a Tao Salvationist and philosophically I am an adaptive pragmatist and I espouse to pragmatic theories of ethics and morality.

How familiar are you with the many versions of the stories of Prophet Joseph? I'm not deviating from the OP I am going to tie this into politics and economics. Just what to get a feel for everyones familiarity with the narrative of the story. You may have also heard the title "King of Dreams"?

Quoting Wallows

Semi-serious. I mean, if you account for all the years the Catholic Church has been around, and combine their liquid and non-liquid assets, along with probably being the first to invest in the stock markets, you should end up with a hefty sum of money accumulated throughout the years, no?

Yes, but money does not necessarily equate prosperity. I could make the argument that the unshaken faith of its followers is a much more important asset for any church.

Quoting simeonz

Yes, but money does not necessarily equate prosperity. I could make the argument that the unshaken faith of its followers is a much more important asset any church.

True, true. I don't mean to instill any conspiracies, as Hollywood does that enough to no end with their Da Vinci Code - Angels, and Demons, ehh...

But, I'm mostly glad we have a socialist Pope Francis.

Reply to Mark Dennis

I've heard of the historian Josephus. I've never heard of the prophet Joseph. Ofcourse there is Joseph from the book of Genesis.

Do you read the Kabbalah? I find it very similar to Druidism and/or Wicca.

Reply to Wallows honestly the way I see it, in the Bible quotes of "helping out the less fortunate and thy neighbor" is a form of fighting materialism. The whole belief is that your life right now is just a test for the afterlife. Therefore material posession is but temporary. I can see why you might think its a socialistic thing. To be fair back then there weren't any machinery that made everything so accessible. So naturally people worked hard. To be fair socialism and capitalism was post Catholicisms time. We created these systems after we mastered trading. Now everyone has access to everything and everyone "can" get anything.

Seriously though, nice thread I like this

Quoting Wallows

A question that arose in that thread, that concerns me is why aren't the majority of Abrahamic religions more left-leaning rather than being conservative in nature?

Now, I have no idea how to approach this question, rather than state the deviation from the norm that is the US. We had people like Max Weber, who grounded or reified the values of Christianity into Protestant work ethics and its more serious derivative being Calvinism, into being compatible with capitalism and with that enlightened self-interest.

Yet, having been influenced by the more mainstream version of Catholicism, which has been de facto eliminated from public discourse in the US, for whatever reason, I feel that socialism or in a more extreme version, even communism are the actual philosophies of Christianity, given a hard reading of the Bible.

Does anyone agree with this sentiment?
Why or why not?

The way I see it, Catholicism, at least, relies on tradition, ritual and institution as much as its financial security for survival, so conservative leanings are very much in its best interests.

In Australia, the govermment has always relied on Catholicism to supplement its health and education systems, which makes for a complex political relationship that seems to create a kind of conservative socialism - at least since the 1970s.

In the US, the left-leaning movement of Progressive Christianity advocates political activism of a socialist nature, although it lacks the numbers, security and influence of its more traditional, conservative counterparts.

My own reading of the Bible suggests that Jesus, at least, took an apolitical stance, despite how he framed it in the context. He advocated self-rule: a less genetic or culturally-based version of the kingless, fathered state formed by the early Hebrews, except without the need for negative ethics. The idea was that it shouldn’t matter who appeared to have political or social authority, there is a universally recognised positive ethics that transcends, rather than overrides, any illusion of external control.

Quoting Reverie

To be fair back then there weren't any machinery that made everything so accessible. So naturally people worked hard. To be fair socialism and capitalism was post Catholicisms time. We created these systems after we mastered trading. Now everyone has access to everything and everyone "can" get anything.

Yeah; but, what about the blatant exploitation of foreign nations by capitalism? Isn't that something we should be concerned about as good Christians?

Quoting Possibility

In Australia, the govermment has always relied on Catholicism to supplement its health and education systems, which makes for a complex political relationship that seems to create a kind of conservative socialism - at least since the 1970s.

Do go on, Australia has always fascinated me...

Quoting Possibility

The idea was that it shouldn’t matter who appeared to have political or social authority, there is a universally recognised positive ethics that transcends, rather than overrides, any illusion of external control.

Cool point, man. I do wonder if the money changers and the clearing of The Second Temple by Jesus, was in any shape or manner a negative ethic shunned by Jesus?

Reply to Wallows Interesting question. I’ll state the obvious so apologies if someone else has touched on this already.

Any institution that lasts has a set of rules/laws. These are necessarily held in place by conservative attitudes not by more libertarian ideas. I think you’ll find conservatism is the mainstay across religions - which ones don’t hold strong conservative values?

I guess you could argue that buddhism is more inclined toward ‘socialism’ but it would be a soft cell. Rigor and repetition are what holds religious institutions together.

Quoting Wallows

Do go on, Australia has always fascinated me...

Since about the 1850s, small groups of Catholic sisters (mostly Sisters of St Joseph) have provided low cost education and health care for remote communities where there was insufficient public education or healthcare available. In the 1970s, the government established an arrangement, at least with Catholic schools, that required them to be subject to teaching and other quality standards in exchange for substantial funding. It’s been an interesting arrangement that seems to have influenced policy on both sides and is often misunderstood, although I’m not party to the details.

Quoting Wallows

Cool point, man. I do wonder if the money changers and the clearing of The Second Temple by Jesus, was in any shape or manner a negative ethic shunned by Jesus?

I don’t think that Jesus shunned negative ethics - he just found most of them more limiting than they needed to be. When he threw the money changers out of the temple, it was in response to the corruption of the temple authorities - in league with these money changers and animal sellers - who sought to make a profit from the strict regulations that prevented the poor from lawfully worshipping God.

Quoting Wallows

A question that arose in that thread, that concerns me is why aren't the majority of Abrahamic religions more left-leaning rather than being conservative in nature?

There is a simple and utterly natural reason for this.

And the answer is in the overt historical hostility of mainstream socialism, which is deeply ideological and inherent in leftist thinking. That many leftists are atheists isn't just a coincidence, but totally reasonable end result. Religion is the opium for the masses, something that the class enemy uses. And now when religion is losing popularity in the West, there's no reason for to approach especially Christianity.

You might find things in Abrahamic religions that seem to share things with socialism and be against capitalism, like Jesus being so against the money lenders or Muslims simply being against banking with interest. Well, a lot of things are universal and these issues have been around before modern socialism. Even liberalism and socialism share things too.

Reply to Wallows Well, for a long time (a millennium minimum) State and Church has been allied. The alliance bound the church to the preservation of whatever-ruling-class-status-quo prevailed. At the same time, there has always been (some, not a lot) resistance to this alliance. Other historical rivers flow into this question: the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the rise of Capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, and so on and so forth. Ebb and flow, action and reaction

The revolutionary Jesus was screwed early on by his success in the Roman Empire. Once a bunch of Christians (just like anybody else anywhere on earth) got a chance at power, they hung onto it. Doom. Holy Mother Church just isn't good soil for nurturing Marxists.

The revolutionary Jesus has been screwed and re-screwed many times over the succeeding centuries, as the church and individual Christians followed their preferential option to attach themselves to the rich and powerful.

Quoting Possibility

Since about the 1850s, small groups of Catholic sisters (mostly Sisters of St Joseph) have provided low cost education and health care for remote communities where there was insufficient public education or healthcare available.

A similar development took place in the United States, particularly in New England, the Upper Midwest, and Northwest, secular and religious culture produced large religious and non-profit social service, education, and medical establishments. The St. Joseph sisters (several varieties) were a part of this. So were Methodists, Lutherans, Jews, et al.

To a large extent, that legacy has withered. After the 1960s exodus of church membership across the church (Protestant and Catholic both), and the abrupt shrinkage of the lay orders, the churches began to lose the economic/membership base that had supported their work.

St. Joseph Carondelet nuns, for instance, were forced to sell their group of hospitals as they shrank and aged out of the capacity to continue on. Actually, the religious & non-profit hospitals were a high-water mark in both cost effectiveness and quality of delivered services.

Reply to Wallows

Yeah, so why does the religiously oriented right hate on it so much, and this isn't something exclusive to the right in the US, also. Centrists like Clinton or Obama, have been staunchly opposed to anything resembling welfare, even if it is economically rational to embrace it!

They aren’t opposed to welfare, per se, but that welfare must be a product of the government.

Quoting ovdtogt

Christianity started off as the religion of the dispossessed. After a period of class warfare the ruling class (polytheistic) adopted the religion of the lower classes and turned it into the state religion (Constantine). This was the formation of Catholicism. A new counter revolution happened under the banner of Protestantism and this was also eventually adopted by the ruling classes (Northern Europe). The ruling class is and always will be right-wing and any religion they adopt will always be as such interpreted.

Yes. Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jewish reformer. Because he preached to the "dispossessed", and understood how the Romans would react to his rabble-rousing, he anticipated a period of extreme hardship for his followers, preceding the "end of the age". That may be why he advised a communal lifestyle of mutual support : "They had all things in common". (Acts 2:42, 4:32)

Years later, when it became obvious that Jesus was long gone, and the "end of the age" had not come, the early Christian tactic of circling the wagons, began to shift toward preparing for a long haul. By the time it became the State Religion of the dominant world power, a complete attitude adjustment was needed. The religion of poor subjugated Jews, meeting in humble homes, was converted into a replica of Roman emperor worship with pomp & splendor appropriate for a wealthy imperious gentile culture, and meeting in grandiose pagan temples. Thus Jesus, the crucified downtrodden Jew, was transformed into the risen triumphant Christ, ruling over the whole world from his exalted throne in the clouds.

So, the modern Christian religion has a split personality : a> the poor-in-spirit tend toward communism or socialism, while b> the rich & powerful tend toward individualism and capitalism. Ironically, some of the poor-in-money like to interpret their scriptures as offering them, in exchange for faith offerings, miraculous access to the wealth of the upper class, and un-christ-like displays of extravagance. Consequently, while a "hard reading" of the Bible may sound leftist, a looser reading can seem downright right-wing. Ironically, the current Pope*1 seems to be leaning leftward, making the conservative Curia uncomfortable.


*1 Caesar Augustus was the Pontifex Maximus of Roman emperor worship. And that title was inherited by Catholic Popes.

Reply to Wallows That is true is it is literally the last part in the 10 commandments. But my question is, how is that a capitalistic thing? Unless you have information I'm not aware about. How was it specifically a capitalistic thing and not an error of man? Since humans are corruptible.

Quoting Gnomon

he anticipated a period of extreme hardship for his followers, preceding the "end of the age". That may be why he advised a communal lifestyle of mutual support : "They had all things in common".

Smart... Real smart.. That makes a lot of sense. Jesus must have been a genius for his time to predict the outcome of his preaching. Or at least highly emotionally intelligent

Quoting Gnomon

Ironically, the current Pope*1 seems to be leaning leftward

I agree. Most Catholics I have spoken to truly despise the words and actions of the current pope. This thread was a great topic but in heart I just don't see Catholicism as a preacher of Socialism considering the amount of individualistic freedom the Bible preaches.

Quoting Reverie

I agree. Most Catholics I have spoken to truly despise the words and actions of the current pope. This thread was a great topic but in heart I just don't see Catholicism as a preacher of Socialism considering the amount of individualistic freedom the Bible preaches.

I see the current Pope as a duplicit man. I'm forbidden by forum rules to go into certain aspects of the current Pope. "Am i my brother's keeper?".

Many zoning laws are actually in opposition to a free market and the funny thing is someone who was truly fiscally conservative would see them for what they really are.

Reply to Gnomon A very powerful description of how the powerful subvert the true meaning of social reform can be read in the book 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell.

Quoting Wallows

A question that arose in that thread, that concerns me is why aren't the majority of Abrahamic religions more left-leaning rather than being conservative in nature?

The emphasis upon what happens to an individual soul became equivalent to the idea of property as used in various forms of common law and various theories of natural right.
Hegel based his idea of Rights upon this notion. Marx used Hegel's description to try and reverse the logic of it.
Maybe neither thinker understood what is involved with the idea.

Quoting ovdtogt

A very powerful description of how the powerful subvert the true meaning of social reform can be read in the book 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell.

Animal Farm was written prior to the automation and globalization on the scale that we have it in our modern age. I agree the book Animal Farm has many important things to consider but I feel the R.I.N.O as well as the Liberal Elite very often summarize the problem with the poor as "they don't work hard enough".

Quoting Reverie

Smart... Real smart.. That makes a lot of sense. Jesus must have been a genius for his time to predict the outcome of his preaching. Or at least highly emotionally intelligent

Jesus didn't have be too smart to predict the Roman suppression of sedition; just a basic knowledge of Jewish history. He had a series of predecessors, back to the Maccabeans, who were either killed in battle or executed for insurrection against oppression by gentile world powers. That may also explain why Paul decided, if you can't beat'em, join'em. :smile:

Reply to christian2017 I have not read the Kabbalah. Can you summarise or expand on that?

Same Joseph as Genesis, son of Jacob. Islam identifies him as a Prophet.

So you're familiar with the story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his jealous brothers and his interpretations of Akhanatens dreams? 7 years of plenty followed by 7 of famine will blight the land?

Quoting Bitter Crank

A similar development took place in the United States, particularly in New England, the Upper Midwest, and Northwest, secular and religious culture produced large religious and non-profit social service, education, and medical establishments. The St. Joseph sisters (several varieties) were a part of this. So were Methodists, Lutherans, Jews, et al.

To a large extent, that legacy has withered. After the 1960s exodus of church membership across the church (Protestant and Catholic both), and the abrupt shrinkage of the lay orders, the churches began to lose the economic/membership base that had supported their work.

St. Joseph Carondelet nuns, for instance, were forced to sell their group of hospitals as they shrank and aged out of the capacity to continue on. Actually, the religious & non-profit hospitals were a high-water mark in both cost effectiveness and quality of delivered services.

Interesting, that hasn’t happened here - probably thanks to government support. There are very few sisters still teaching or working in hospitals, and yet both remain a benchmark for service quality and cost-effectiveness. Despite the dramatic fall in church membership and lay orders, the Catholic education systems here have grown from strength to strength since the 1960s, and currently hold a lot of sway in the overall education system in Australia - too much, some would argue. Even most major public hospitals here have a private catholic hospital nearby or on the premises. The public-private choice here is very different to the US, from what little I’ve seen. Less pronounced, perhaps? Idk

Quoting Valentinus

Hegel based his idea of Rights upon this notion. Marx used Hegel's description to try and reverse the logic of it.
Maybe neither thinker understood what is involved with the idea.

Do go on... I'm having a hard time connecting the dots here.

Reply to Mark Dennis

I'm not a big fan of the Kabbalah. I would rather not elaborate. No offense but you are probably better off looking it up yourself. Orthodox Jews don't recognize the Kabbalah.

I'm fairly familiar with the story of Joseph. I was not aware he had a book.

Reply to christian2017 in Islam he does but either way its the narrative I want us to look at.

This story influences my political outlook. That of adaptive centrist; knowing when to conserve and when to be liberal and in what areas of life. For example in the case of resources, I want the government to be more liberal in certain key policies but businesses need to be far more conservative. Particularly the tech industry.

Joseph's role in saving Egypt from famine was that of knowing when to conserve and when to give.

I am not a single issue voter so a centrist is the only intelligent thing to call myself.

Reply to Mark Dennis

most republicans are centrists even if they claim not to be. I don't like most Republicans because they typically blame the problem of the poor on not working hard enough. I don't expect you scroll up through this particular forum topic but i noted solutions elsewhere on the internet that adhere to a completely free market.

Reply to Wallows
In Marx's Critique of Hegel's Dialectic and General Philosophy (1844), the matter of being alienated by the objective world is examined side by side with theology. It is hard to decide where to jump into this text but the following points to the distinctions made in my remark. Marx claims Hegel is saying:

Marx, edited by John Raines:"Man, who has realized that in law, politics, etc, he leads an alienated life, leads his true human life in this alienated life as such. Self-affirmation, self-confirmation in contradiction with itself and with the knowledge and the nature of the object is therefore true knowledge and true life.

Therefore there can no longer be any question about a compromise on Hegel's part with religion, the state, etc., since this untruth is the untruth of his principle.

If I know religion as alienated human self-consciousness, then what I know in it as religion is not my self-consciousness but my alienated self-consciousness confirmed in it. Thus I know that the self-consciousness which belongs to the essence of my own self is not confirmed in religion but in the destruction and supersession of religion.

In Hegel, therefore, the negation of the negation is not the confirmation of true being through the negation of apparent being. It is the confirmation of apparent being or self-estranged being residing outside man and independent of him and its transformation into the subject.

The act of superseding therefore plays a special role in which negation and preservation (affirmation) are brought together.

Thus, for example, in Hegel's Philosophy of Right, private right superseded equals morality, morality superseded equals family, family superseded equals civil society, civil society superseded equals state and state superseded equals world history. In reality private right, morality, family, civil society, state, etc.,continue to exist, but have become moments and modes of human existence which are meaningless in isolation but which mutually dissolve and engender one another. They are moments of movement."

The loose inflated bladder in this scrum of an essay is how discussions of Nature are involved with accepting one narrative of what is happening over other narratives. Somehow, the discussion of the idea of loving the neighbor as oneself got entangled with seeing the world as a cold blue ball.